Socialism and Capitalism suffer from one specific problem which leads to a meltdown

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: MoonBlossom

originally posted by: lostbook
Capitalism is eventually doomed to fail because it requires infinite growth even though we live in a finite system of resources.

Can anyone that is pro Capitalism refute this statement?

Genuine question.

The End of Growth Wouldn't Be the End of Capitalism

DOES CAPITALISM NEED GROWTH? Ask any economist of the free-market persuasion to justify capitalism, and the word "growth" probably won't even be part of his spiel. The simple Econ 101 theories that are used to justify free markets don't even have growth in them! In Econ 101, capitalism works because people gain from trade, not because they have more and more to trade over time. Efficiency, not growth, is the gold ring. In those simple toy economies, people just keep on cheerfully making their bargains of cattle and grain until the Sun explodes.

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply. Much appreciation for the linked article, it's good to reflect upon both sides of the discussion and I found it to be an enjoyable read. It was interesting to note that the author included this bit, even if they supposed it only a very slight possibility that they may be wrong:

There is no obvious reason why capitalism will end when growth ends. But here's a less obvious reason why I might be wrong. Perhaps advanced societies have only tolerated inequality because they were mollified by the promise of a perpetually rising tide. When growth stops altogether, their (currently well-hidden) rage will come boiling to the surface, and the capitalists and the 1% and the creditors and the stockholders will be up against the wall.

I guess time will be the great revealer on that front...

Something that I have long considered, is that with so many unable to attain a university degree, not due to lack of aptitude, but lack of finances; is that how many brilliant economic ideas have we perchance missed hearing about over decades, lost forever - solely due to the current paradigm of our society. There might be many someones out their right now, whose voice could change everything, but may never be heard or in a position to effect change. I'd like to think that's not a planned intent, but it does give one pause to wonder about.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: MoonBlossom

originally posted by: lostbook
Capitalism is eventually doomed to fail because it requires infinite growth even though we live in a finite system of resources.

Can anyone that is pro Capitalism refute this statement?

Genuine question.

The infinite growth meme is suspiciously similar to the inflation is good meme.

Perhaps they both come from the same "education".

Capitalism is incentivized production, not growth.

Thank you for your reply as well as this is not a topic I delve into often. I may not get back immediately, but I will always return to read any replies to my queries.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You're focusing too much on just the light bulb, I'm putting it forward as an example of planned obsolescence but not the only example. If you wish, I could name 100 other products that this principal applies to, for starters every item on a Walmart shelf opposed to a quality built item that does the same job. It applies to appliances, software, tools, clothing, and everything else. If it didn't, the quality of goods we can make today are such that most items would be purchased only a handful of times throughout your life. These repeat purchases generate more profit, but more importantly they generate jobs. Capitalism dramatically improves worker productivity, such that we can create abundance. If 10,000 pairs of jeans need to be made in a time period, we can make them with 500 people. But a year or two later we can make them with 450 people. That puts 50 people out of work, the fix is to make the jeans wear out sooner, so that we now need 11,000 pairs of jeans and those 500 people remain employed. Usually this involves lowering the price of the jeans as the materials are now of lower quality. Oddly enough, this actually makes the product more competitive because it has the same appearance as the competition but sells at a lower price.

The light bulb was not a good example, it was a fluke. Any one thing made might last forever, good quality or not.

Planned obsolescence is a reasonable possibility. Apathy would cause a very similar outcome.

Remember that the economic system has been retarded for 100 years. Companies that made an awesome product could be sued for unfair business practices.

originally posted by: MoonBlossom

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: MoonBlossom

originally posted by: lostbook
Capitalism is eventually doomed to fail because it requires infinite growth even though we live in a finite system of resources.

Can anyone that is pro Capitalism refute this statement?

Genuine question.

The End of Growth Wouldn't Be the End of Capitalism

DOES CAPITALISM NEED GROWTH? Ask any economist of the free-market persuasion to justify capitalism, and the word "growth" probably won't even be part of his spiel. The simple Econ 101 theories that are used to justify free markets don't even have growth in them! In Econ 101, capitalism works because people gain from trade, not because they have more and more to trade over time. Efficiency, not growth, is the gold ring. In those simple toy economies, people just keep on cheerfully making their bargains of cattle and grain until the Sun explodes.

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply.

Much appreciation for the linked article, it's good to reflect upon both sides of the discussion and I found it to be an enjoyable read. It was interesting to note that the author included this bit, even if they supposed it only a very slight possibility that they may be wrong:

There is no obvious reason why capitalism will end when growth ends. But here's a less obvious reason why I might be wrong. Perhaps advanced societies have only tolerated inequality because they were mollified by the promise of a perpetually rising tide. When growth stops altogether, their (currently well-hidden) rage will come boiling to the surface, and the capitalists and the 1% and the creditors and the stockholders will be up against the wall.

I guess time will be the great revealer on that front...

Something that I have long considered, is that with so many unable to attain a university degree, not due to lack of aptitude, but lack of finances; is that how many brilliant economic ideas have we perchance missed hearing about over decades, lost forever - solely due to the current paradigm of our society. There might be many someones out their right now, whose voice could change everything, but may never be heard or in a position to effect change. I'd like to think that's not a planned intent, but it does give one pause to wonder about.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: MoonBlossom

originally posted by: lostbook
Capitalism is eventually doomed to fail because it requires infinite growth even though we live in a finite system of resources.

Can anyone that is pro Capitalism refute this statement?

Genuine question.

The infinite growth meme is suspiciously similar to the inflation is good meme.

Perhaps they both come from the same "education".

Capitalism is incentivized production, not growth.

Thank you for your reply as well as this is not a topic I delve into often. I may not get back immediately, but I will always return to read any replies to my queries.

You are very welcome, it is a pleasure to discuss these things without the vitriol that seems to pervade the topic.

I chose that article because of its relative objectivity compared to most.

The classical economists had mad a mistake in their calculations of value, this led to false economic syllogisms which underpin socialist ideas. That's why it never works and can't work. Corruption never helped any system ever either.

we could have a synthesis called socio-capitalism where instead of monopolies a company would become more publicly owned the more money it made and eventually the tax payers would reap the profits. a reply to: aiolosmartine

originally posted by: xuenchen
Capitalism fails when government intervenes.

Socialism fails because it depends on failed governments.

It ain't just the government. Gangs, and Corporations are also the issue why Capitalism failed. Government isn't the one buying out your land. They just tax you to death. Corporations will try to buy out your land. Gangs are just a violent group of people rising within the country creating their own little country by controlling other peoples territory.

a reply to: makemap

But those represent massive government failures don't they.

The thing which is being overlooked is not the system itself as a source of corruption but systems ABOVE those. Saying the USA is corrupt because it has corrupted hyper-capitalism is mostly false.

The corruption came from two main places - the Federal Reserve global banking power system and the Multinational Corporate power system. You'll notice things didn't start to really go downhill rapidly until after the "money in politics" citizens united laws were passed. These were the foot in the door moment for the multinationals.

Where did they get the money to buy our politicians? Well little stuff like when European Cadburry Schwepps bought Dr Pepper/Seven-up and borrowed some 5 billion dollars and then simply took that cash and spun them off as their own unique company with an added 5 billion in magic debt. It's like magic when you don't protect your local companies they get stepped all over. The fact that things like this were allowed to go on as well as all the mergers were really the cause of the damage and the corruption.

Mergers are damaging such as (the anti-anti-trust phase) where afterward they all say hey we don't need TWO payroll departments or TWO human resource departments or TWO public relations teams and do the Mitt Romney thing where they lay a bunch of people off and count all their profit dollars. This is why we had anti-trust laws but citizens united laws trump this by allowing them to change the laws however they please since they bought the politicians.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: makemap

But those represent massive government failures don't they.

If so, then your just asking for Fascism. It is more of the people who are failing with laziness and possible greed.

Socialism and capitalism are ideologies, and have no place in normal social functioning in any society. They are a poison that was invented in London. Yes, you heard it right, Communism and Capitalism were both invented in London.
Being both ideologies, that have no ground to stand on, will inevitably collapse, because they tend to be inflexible. A glass falling from the table shatters on the ground due to the inflexible nature of glass.

originally posted by: Flanker86
Socialism and capitalism are ideologies, and have no place in normal social functioning in any society. They are a poison that was invented in London. Yes, you heard it right, Communism and Capitalism were both invented in London.
Being both ideologies, that have no ground to stand on, will inevitably collapse, because they tend to be inflexible. A glass falling from the table shatters on the ground due to the inflexible nature of glass.

Ya, instead of looking at ideologies like most people on this forum do. They should be looking at corruption of greed and power. Fk these ideologies. Lets have a king and boycott all evil and let them have the guillotine.